Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A COMPARISON OF PILE PERFORMANCE BASE ON STATIC FORMULAS AND
DYNAMIC LOAD TEST
MUHD HARRIS BIN RAMLI
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of degree of Master of
Engineering (Civil-Geotechnic)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JULY, 2006
iv
ABSTRACT
Since the early of pile static formula suggested by Meyerhof (1956) up until
now, several pile design method is being proposed. Between one method and
another, result differences are still questionable. This study is conducted base on
driven pile 300 mm diameter spun pile constructed in Malaysia on sand or fine soil.
This is to determine the differences between several pile design methods by
Meyerhof (1976), Janbu (1976), Vesic (1977), Coyle and Castello (1981), method
(1985) and method (1972) with the End-bearing capacity and Skin Resistance
capacity value from dynamic load test using Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). All the
design method is also analyzed by using soil friction angle correlation by
Schmertmann (1975), Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) and Hatanaka and Uchida
(1996). From analysis it can be found that Meyerhof, Coyle and Castello, and
method are the most conservative which its value lower or almost near the PDA
value. Then follow by Janbu method and method which its value almost near PDA
or slightly above it. Vesic method is found to be very unconservative which it value
well above PDA value. From this study it can be conclude that it is recommended to
use either Meyerhof or Janbu Method for estimating end-bearing capacity in sand
and silt. For skin resistance in sand it recommended using Meyerhof method. Finally
for estimating skin resistance in clayed soil it is recommended to use method.
v
ABSTRAK
Sejak daripada awal kewujudan formula static cerucuk yang telah
dicadangkan oleh Meyerhof (1956), beberapa formula rekabentuk cerucuk telah
dicadangkan oleh beberapa individu yang lain. Walaubagaimanapun perbezaan
rekabentuk antara beberapa formula ini masih lagi menjadi tanda tanya. Kajian ini
dijalankan berdasarkan cerucuk kelompang bersaiz 300 mm diameter yang telah
ditanam di atas tanah berbutir halus dan berpasir di Malaysia. Kajian ini adalah untuk
mengkaji perbezaan keupayaan galas dan geseran kulit cerucuk antara beberapa
kaedah rekabentuk cerucuk oleh Meyerhof (1976), Janbu (1976), Vesic (1977),
Coyle dan Castello (1981), kaedah (1985) dan kaedah (1972) dengan keupayaan
cerucuk yang diperolehi daripada ujian beban cerucuk menggunakan Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA). Kesemua kaedah rekabentuk turut dianalisis menggunakan sekaitan
sudut geseran tanah oleh Schmertmann (1975), Peck, Hanson dan Thornburn (1974),
dan Hatanaka dan Uchida (1996). Daripada analysis, dapat dirumuskan bahawa
kaedah , Coyle dan Castello, dan Meyerhof merupakan kaedah yang paling
konsevatif kerana mempunyai nilai keupayaan yang rendah atau hampir dengan nilai
PDA. Ini diikuti oleh kaedah dan kaedah Janbu yang mempunyai nilai yang hampir
atau lebih sedikit daripada nilai PDA. Kaedah Vesic didapati merupakan kaedah
yang paling tidak konservatif kerana mempunyai nilai yang agak tinggi berbanding
dengan nilai daripada PDA. Daripada kajian ini dapat disimpulkan bahawa kaedah
Meyerhof dan Janbu merupakan kaedah paling sesuai bagi analisis keupayaan galas
tanah pasir dan kelodak. Bagi analisis keupayaan geseran kulit cerucuk ditanam di
tanah pasir, kaedah Meyerhof merupakan yang paling sesuai. Akhir sekali, kaedah
merupakan kaedah yang dicadangkan bagi analysis keupayaan geseran kulit cerucuk
ditanam di tanah liat.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
ABSTRAK v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS xviii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objective 2
1.3 Research Scope 3
1.4 Importance of Study 4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1.1 Classification of Pile 5
2.1.1.1 Load-bearing Characteristics 5
vii
2.1.1.2 Pile Installation Method 6
2.2 Selection of Pile 7
2.2.1 Ground Condition and Structure 8
2.2.2 Durability 9
2.2.3 Piling Cost 10
2.3 General Overview of Piled Foundation Design 11
2.3.1 Factor of Safety 11
2.4 Effects of Pile Driving in Clays 13
2.4.1 Influence on Soil Shear Strength and
Pile Capacity
13
2.4.2 Pore Pressure Developed during Driving 15
2.4.3 Dissipation of Excess Pore Pressure 16
2.4.4 Displacement Caused by Driving 18
2.5 Effects of Pile Driving in Sands 21
2.5.1 Single Piles 21
2.5.2 Pile Groups 23
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 24
3.1 Phase One – Research Data 24
3.1.1 Phase One Stage One – Case Retrieval 24
3.1.2 Phase One Stage Two –
Information Retrieval
26
3.1.2.1 Data Acquiring From Soil
Investigation Report
26
3.1.2.2 Correlated Data from Soil
Investigation Report
26
3.1.2.3 Data Acquiring From Pile Load
Test Report
29
viii
3.1.3 Phase One Stage Three –
Analysis Information Preparation
29
3.2 Phase Two – Pile Design 30
3.2.1 Pile End-Bearing Capacity (Qp) Design in
Sandy Soil
30
3.2.1.1 Meyerhof’s Method (1976) for
Estimating (Qp) in Sandy Soil
31
3.2.1.2 Vesic’s Method (1977) for
Estimating (Qp) in Sandy Soil
32
3.2.1.3 Janbu’s Method (1977) for
Estimating (Qp) in Sandy Soil
33
3.2.2 Pile Skin Friction Capacity (Qs) Design in
Sandy Soil
33
3.2.2.1 Meyerhof’s Method (1977) for
Estimating (Qs) in Sandy Soil
34
3.2.2.2 Coyle and Castello Method (1981)
for Estimating (Qs) in Sandy Soil
35
3.2.3 Pile Skin Friction Capacity (Qs) Design in
Clay
35
3.2.3.1 Method (1977) for Estimating (Qs) in
Clay
35
3.2.3.2 Method (1977) for Estimating (Qs) in
Clay
37
3.3 Phase Three – Research Analysis 38
3.3.1 Phase Three Stage One –
Comparison Between Redesign Load
Carrying Capacity and Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA) Load Carrying Capacity
38
3.3.2 Phase Three Stage Two –
Accuracy Ratio Analysis
40
ix
3.3.3 Phase Three Stage Three –
Design Parameter Relationship
40
3.4 Phase Four – Pile Design Guideline 42
3.4.1 Phase Four Stage One –
Relationship Analysis
42
3.4.2 Phase Four Final Stage –
Pile Design Method Recommendations
42
CHAPTER IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 43
4.1 Sandy Soil Study Case 44
4.1.1 Preparation of Analysis Data 44
4.1.1.1 Direct Design Parameter Value 44
4.1.1.2 Indirect Design Parameter Value 44
4.1.2 End-Bearing Analysis for Sand Study Case 47
4.1.2.1 Estimation of Theoretical End-Bearing
Capacity for Sand Soil
47
4.1.2.2 Comparison of Theoretical
End-Bearing Capacity with Pile
Driving Analyzer (PDA) End-Bearing
Capacity for Sand Soil
50
4.1.2.3 Relationship Analysis for Sand
End-Bearing Estimation
52
4.1.3 Skin Resistance Analysis for Sand
Study Case
57
4.1.3.1 Estimation of Theoretical
Skin Resistance for Sand Soil
57
4.1.3.2 Comparison of Theoretical
Skin Resistance with Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA) Skin Resistance for
Sand Soil
59
x
4.1.3.3 Relationship Analysis for Sand
Skin Resistance Estimation
61
4.2 Fine Soil Study Case 63
4.2.1 Preparation of Analysis Data 63
4.2.1.1 Direct Design Parameter Value 63
4.2.1.2 Indirect Design Parameter Value 64
4.2.2 End-Bearing Analysis for Fine Soil
Study Case
66
4.2.2.1 Estimation of Theoretical
End-Bearing Capacity for Silt Soil
66
4.2.2.2 Comparison of Theoretical
End-Bearing Capacity with Pile
Driving Analyzer (PDA)
End-Bearing Capacity for Silt Soil
68
4.2.2.3 Relationship Analysis for Silt
End-Bearing Estimation
70
4.2.3 Skin Resistance Analysis for Fine Soil
Study Case
72
4.2.3.1 Estimation of Theoretical Skin
Resistance for Clay
72
4.2.3.2 Comparison of Theoretical
Skin Resistance with Pile Driving
Analyzer (PDA) Skin Resistance for
Clay
72
4.2.3.3 Relationship Analysis for Clay
Skin Resistance Estimation
73
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 75
REFERENCES 77
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
3.1 The group and classification for analysis in all study case 38
4.1 Pile end-bearing design parameter value taken directly
from the report
44
4.2 Pile skin resistance design parameter value taken directly
from the report
45
4.3 Soil Friction Angle value correlated from SPT N value in
Soil Investigation Report for Sand End-Bearing Capacity
analysis
46
4.4 Soil Friction Angle value correlated from SPT N value in
Soil Investigation Report for Sand Skin Resistance
analysis
46
4.5 Pile design parameter value calculated from formula 47
4.6 Sand theory End-Bearing analyzed used Meyerhof
(1976), Vesic (1977), and Janbu’s Method (1976) for
Group A Soil Friction Angle
48
4.7 Sand theory End-Bearing analyzed used Meyerhof
(1976), Vesic (1977), and Janbu’s Method (1976) for
Group B Soil Friction Angle
48
4.8 Sand theory End-Bearing analyzed used Meyerhof
(1976), Vesic (1977), and Janbu’s Method (1976) for
Group C Soil Friction Angle
49
xii
4.9 Sand theory Skin Resistance analyzed used Meyerhof’s
Method (1977), and Coyle and Castello’s Method (1981)
for Group A Soil Friction Angle
57
4.10 Sand Skin Resistance analyzed used Meyerhof (1977),
and Coyle and Castello’s Method (1981) for Group B
Soil Friction Angle
58
4.11 Sand Skin Resistance analyzed used Meyerhof (1977),
and Coyle and Castello’s Method (1981) for Group C
Soil Friction Angle
58
4.12 Pile design parameter value taken directly from the
report
63
4.13 Soil Friction Angle value correlated from SPT N value in
Soil Investigation Report for Silt End-Bearing Capacity
analysis
65
4.14 Silt theory End-Bearing analyzed used Meyerhof (1976),
Vesic (1977), and Janbu’s Method (1976) for Group A
Soil Friction Angle
66
4.15 Sand theory End-Bearing analyzed used Meyerhof
(1976), Vesic (1977) and Janbu’s Method (1976) for
Group B Soil Friction Angle
67
4.16 Sand theory End-Bearing analyzed used Meyerhof
(1976), Vesic (1977) and Janbu’s Method (1976) for
Group C Soil Friction Angle.
67
4.17 Clay theory Skin Resistance analyzed used Alpha
Method (1985) and Lamda Method (1972).
72
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 (a) End-bearing type of pile 6
2.1 (b) Skin friction type of pile 6
2.2 Classification of piling system according to the Code
of Practice for Foundation, BS 8004:1986
7
2.3 Increase of load capacity with time (Soderberg, 1962) 15
2.4 Theoretical solution for rate of consolidation near a
driven pile
16
2.5 Movement of nearby building caused by pile driving
operation
19
2.6 The contours of soil friction angle ( ) cause by
compaction of sand around driven pile
22
3.1 Study methodology flow chart 25
3.2 Variation of the maximum values of with soil
friction angle ’
qN 31
3.3 Variation of with cu/ ’o 36
3.4 Variation of with pile embedment length 37
3.5 Line Chart Theory Redesign value versus Pile
Driving Analyzer value
39
3.6 The line chart of Accuracy Ratio against Soil Friction
Angle
41
3.7 The line chart of Accuracy Ratio against Overburden
Pressure
41
xiv
4.1 Theory End-Bearing vs PDA End-bearing graph for
All Group
51
4.2 Theory End-Bearing vs PDA End-bearing graph for
Group B
51
4.3 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for All Group
53
4.4 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for Group A
53
4.5 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for Group B
54
4.6 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for Group C
54
4.7 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Overburden
Pressure for Group B
56
4.8 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Overburden
Pressure for Group C
56
4.9 Theory Skin Resistance vs PDA Skin Resistance
graph for Group A
60
4.10 Theory Skin Resistance vs PDA Skin Resistance
graph for Group B
60
4.11 Theory Skin Resistance vs PDA Skin Resistance
graph for Group C
61
4.12 Theory Skin Resistance / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for all group
62
4.13 Theory End-Bearing vs PDA End-bearing graph for
All Group
69
4.14 Theory End-Bearing vs PDA End-bearing graph for
Group B
69
4.15 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for Group A
70
4.16 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for Group B
71
xv
4.17 Theory End-Bearing / PDA Ratio vs Soil Friction
Angle for Group C
71
4.18 Theory Skin Resistance vs PDA Skin Resistance
Ratio graph
73
4.19 Theory Skin Resistance / PDA Ratio vs Overburden
Pressure graph
74
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Vesic Value use in Pile End-Bearing Design
Analysis
N 79
B / B-1 Summary Soil Investigation Report 81
B / B-2 Summary Pile Load Test Report – PDA Test 105
C Detail Pile Design Parameter Value Calculation for Sand
Study Case
115
D / D-1 Sand Pile End-Bearing Capacity Analysis Summary 120
D / D-2 Example Set 4/Group B Pile End-Bearing Detail Design
for Sand Study Case
122
E Theory End-Bearing vs PDA End-Bearing Graph for
Group A and Group C in Sand Study Case
126
F / F-1 Sand Pile Skin Resistance Capacity Analysis Summary 127
F / F-2 Example Set 4/Group B Pile Skin Resistance Detail
Design for Sand Study Case
129
G Detail Pile Design Parameter Value Calculation for Fine
Soil Study Case
133
xvii
H / H-1 Silt Pile End-Bearing Capacity Analysis Summary 139
H / H-2 Example Set 4/Group B Pile End-Bearing Detail Design
for Fine Soil Study Case
141
I Theory End-Bearing vs PDA End-Bearing Graph for
Group A and Group C in Fine Soil Study Case
145
J Clay Pile Skin Resistance Capacity Detail Analysis
Design
146
xviii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
SYMBOLS
w Soil moisture content
Unit weight of soil
sat Unit weight of saturated soil
w Unit weight of water
cu Undrained shear strength
L Pile penetration length
L’ Pile critical depth (for skin resistance analysis)
Gs Specified gravity of soil
Soil vertical effective stress / overburden pressure
Pa Atmospheric pressure
Dr Soil relative density
Soil friction angle
D50 Sieve size passing 50% in mm
Soil-pile friction angle
Irr Reduced rigidity index for the soil
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Pile foundations have been in use since prehistoric times. The Neolithic
inhabitants of Switzerland drove wooden poles in the soft bottoms of shallow lakes
12,000 years ago and erected their homes on them (Sowers 1979). Venice was built
on timber piles in the marshy delta of the Po River to protect early Italians from the
invaders of Eastern Europe and at the same time enable them to be close to the sea
and their source of livelihood. In Venezuela, the Indians lived in pile-supported huts
in lagoons around the shores of Lake Maracaibo. Today, pile foundations serve the
same purpose, to make it possible to build in areas where the soil conditions are
unfavorable for shallow foundations.
Although it dates back to prehistoric lake villages, until late nineteenth
century, the design of pile foundation was based entirely on experience or even
divine providence. Modern literature on piles can be said to date from the publication
of the Engineering News (later to become the Engineering News-Record) in 1893,
pile- driving formula was proposed (Poulos, H.G. 1980).
2
Since this first attempt at a theoretical assessment of the capacity of a pile, a
great volume of field experimental and empirical data on the performance of pile
foundation has been published.
By now there is several design method can be use in pile design but only few
is suitable use for practice. Although there is few of this design method, the value
estimated different between one and another are still questionable. That which comes
to the main interest of this study which method is suitable for a given condition.
In this study which entitles “A Comparison of Pile Performance Base on
Static Formulas and Dynamic Load Test”, the performance of pile on end-bearing
capacity and skin resistance analysis will be study base on the Pile Driving Analysis
(PDA) pile capacity value to be compared with several selected analysis method.
1.2 Objective
This study aim is to give a guideline for pile designer to choose which
method is suitable for a certain type of soil properties and condition. There is four
objective in this study that need to be achieve in order to conclude which pile static
formula suitable for a given soil condition:
1. To estimate theoretical pile end-bearing capacity (Qp) and skin resistance
capacity (Qs) for each study cases.
2. To compare theoretical pile end-bearing capacity (Qp) and skin resistance
capacity (Qs) from various pile static formula with dynamic load test on each
study cases.
3
3. To determine the relationship between pile end-bearing capacity (Qp) and
skin resistance capacity (Qs) ratio (Q(Theory)/Q(PDA)), with effective vertical
stress at the level of pile tip ( ’) on each study cases.
4. To determine the relationship between pile end-bearing capacity (Qp) and
skin resistance capacity (Qs) ratio (Q(Theory)/Q(PDA)), with soil friction angle ( )
on each study cases.
1.3 Research Scope
This research is base on the data obtain from Soil Investigation Report and
Pile Load Test Report on construction Project in Malaysia. Only large displacement
type of pile is consider in this studies because of the availability of data which can
give a better analysis result. The type of pile selected for this research is limited to
driven pile type 300 diameter spun pile. The load-carrying capacity of the pile point
(Qp) and skin friction (Qs) data obtain from dynamic pile load test is using Pile
Driving Analyzer (PDA) method.
The estimation of theoretical load-carrying capacity of the pile point (Qp) is
analyze using three type of method which are Meyerhof’s Method (1976), Vesic’s
Method (1977), and Janbu’s Method (1976). Whereas the skin friction (Qs) is
analyzed using Meyerhof’s Method (1976) and Coyle and Castello Method (1981)
for sand and for clayey soils, analysis is using Method (1985) and Method
(1972). The selection of these analysis methods is base on the most preferable design
method use in Malaysia pile design practice.
4
1.4 Importance of Study
This study importance because pile and soil interaction is not an easy
knowledge to be fully understand, even from the very earliest pile formulation
studies by Meyerhof (1956) up until now, still consider as an estimated value.
With the various pile static formula nowadays, the different between one
method and another cause a lot of uncertainties which contributing higher safety
factor. A higher safety factor in a design mean, a utilization of a larger pile cross
section which laterally cause an unnecessary larger piling cost. At a worst case, a
proposal of a vital project has to be turn down just because of the piling cost is
unreasonable compare to the superstructure itself.
77
REFERENCES
Bengt B. Broms (1978), “Precast Piling Practice”, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm
Braja M. Das (2004), “Principles of Foundation Engineering”, Fifth Edition,
Thomson Brooks / Cole, US
Bustamante M. (1982), “Foundation Engineering”, Volume 1: Soil Properties –
Foundation design and construction”, Presses Ponts et chausses, Paris
Craig R.F (1993), “Mekanik Tanah”, Edisi Keempat, Unit Penerbitan Akademik
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru
Curtis W.G, Shaw G., Parkinson G.I. and Golding J.M. (2000), “Structural
Foundation Designers’ Manual”, Blackwell Sciences Ltd, Oxford
Joseph E. Bowles (1997), “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Fifth Edition, The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., US
Nathabandu T. K. and Renzo R. (1997), “Statistics, Probability, and Reliability for
Civil and Environmental Engineers”, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York
78
Poulos H.G and Davis E.H (1980), “Pile Foundation Analysis and Design”, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., Canada
Roy E. Hunt (1983), “Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual”, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York
William P. (1997), “Soil Mechanics; Concept and Applications”, Chapman & Hall,
London
